Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Main Lowcarb Lobby
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-16-2013, 11:33 AM   #1
Senior LCF Member
 
Aleina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Argentina
Posts: 874
Gallery: Aleina
Stats: 224/ 172.9 31 Jan /150
WOE: Epi Paleo
Start Date: 15 Nov 2012 various WOES
How calorie values are arrived at

A very basic explanation that really makes you wonder.

A container is filled with water letīs say for argumentīs sake one litre. The water temperature is measured. A steel ball with 100g (or whatever quantity is being tested) with the chosen food is placed into the water. A redhot wire is introduced into the steel sphere and the content (food) is being burned. At the end of the burning process the ball is removed and the water temperature measured. If the temperature has risen by one degree the food contained in the sphere has 1000 calories.

Heh? So an incendiary process a combustion process is being equalled to the complex metabolic processes in our bodies. Last I knew I was not a steam engine. Why do I use the example of steam engine? Well, the caloriemeter was originally designed to test the effectiveness of various combustion materials for steam engines....The Atwater system does not appear to be much better as it uses as its base the carb protein fat grams contained in a food and multiplies it by the individual calorie values of the food groups. Should I mention that the calorie values of those were initially determined by same said metal ball contraption of the steam engine age ...? Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss.
A frivolous thought: If my metabolism is essentially defined by how quickly the temperature of water rises could I burn off a "Death by chocolate" dessert by throwing myself in the snow making snow angels ? Would it not be just as logical ?

How do food manufacturers calculate the calorie count of packaged foods?: Scientific American


I did read something else. I must be in an irreverent mood.
It is in German however. Google translator should manage it as it is not a very hard read.
It is an interview with a German food chemist and since 1994 director of the European Institute of food and Nutrition sciences ( a non profit org) by the name of Udo Pollmer. He is controversial but his ad absurdum logical conclusions about what the tenets of modern nutrition sciences actually mean made me laugh out loud . A good read with the potential of activating your intestinal protrusion .( if you manage to read it you will understand)


"Der Körper holt es sich" - Nachrichten DIE WELT - DIE WELT
__________________
My age ? Well, I remember the days when Apple and Blackberry were just apple and blackberry...

[SIZE="1"CMy journal : http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/we...626-50-go.html

Everything and nothing is poison. The amount alone decides whether it becomes a poison or not -Paracelsus[/SIZE]
Aleina is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 06-16-2013, 01:36 PM   #2
.
 
ravenrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,668
Gallery: ravenrose
Stats: lost 130 lb so far, and miles to go before I sleep
WOE: low carb controlled calorie
Start Date: June, 2009
yes, and I think that no caloric allowance is made for the fact that fiber burns but we don't digest it. or rather, SOMETIMES that is taken into account, not usually? anyway, the whole process of measuring calories is just one of the reasons calorie counting alone is an iffy way to try to lose weight.
ravenrose is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 05:18 AM   #3
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,620
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
I read somewhere that the methods in which the caloric value of foods is so fraught with arrived at that it cannot be applied to human nutrition in any way.
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 05:45 AM   #4
Senior LCF Member
 
Aleina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Argentina
Posts: 874
Gallery: Aleina
Stats: 224/ 172.9 31 Jan /150
WOE: Epi Paleo
Start Date: 15 Nov 2012 various WOES
Yup. That is why I posted this . It is soo easy to fall into the trap of shaving off one extra 100 cals to lose faster,etc. Only problem is that no two food stuffs are alike even ones with the same name Candeal wheat is different to Eritrean wheat and different to Argentine wheat . It could be a 1 % difference or it could be a 10% difference.
Aleina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 07:08 PM   #5
Senior LCF Member
 
thatphdguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 382
Gallery: thatphdguy
WOE: Modified Atkins extended induction
Start Date: May, 26 2013
Very interesting reading
Thank you
thatphdguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:47 PM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriendsŪ is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.